Karnataka High Court
Sri. Basavaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
WP No. 29995 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.29995 OF 2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BASAVARAJ S/O SANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
SWATANTRA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
AMBEDKAR COLONY,
HAROORGERY, BIDAR,
BIDAR DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER,
BASAVATHIRTHA VIDYA PEETHA,
HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, HALLIKHED (B),
HUMNABAD TALUKA, BIDAR DISTRICT.
Digitally signed by
RENUKA
Location: HIGH 2. SMT. SAVITHRI W/O ARUNA KUMAR,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
KARNATAKA SWATANTRA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
AMBEDKAR COLONY, HAROORGERY,
BIDAR, BIDAR DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT TEACHER,
SIDDARAMESHWAR HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
SHAHABAD, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
WP No. 29995 of 2016
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT, KALABURAGI.
4. THE SECRETARY,
BASAVATHIRTHA VIDYA PEETHA KENDRA
KARYALAYA, HUMNABAD,
BIDAR DISTRICT.
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATIVE),
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OFFICER,
DIST: BIDAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 & R5;
R4 SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
NOS.1 TO 3 TO RELEASE AND PAY THE ARREARS OF SALARY
PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONERS FOR THE PERIOD FROM
DECEMBER 2000 TO OCTOBER 2007 AND AUGUST 2007
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
WP No. 29995 of 2016
RESPECTIVELY ALONG WITH COMPOUNDABLE INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 12% PER ANNUM AND ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITIONS IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2011
PASSED IN WP NO.8132 OF 2010 AND WA NO.1411 OF 2012
ORDER DATED 11.10.2012 VIDE ANNEXURES-P AND Q. B)
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO RE-
FIX THE PAY SCALE OF THE PETITIONERS BY INCLUDING THE
PERIOD OF SERVICE RENDERED BY THEM FROM DECEMBER
2000 TO OCTOBER 2007 AND AUGUST 2007 RESPECTIVELY
AND TO EXTEND ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. C)
ISSUE SUCH OTHER ORDERS, DIRECTIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT
PETITON WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS, IN THE INTERST OF
JUSTICE. D) ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 15.11.2010 IN
NO.J2:KhaPraSha:BaaSam:13640:2006/5411 ISSUED BY
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT, BIDAR, PROPOSED IMPLEADING
RESPONDENT NO.5, VIDE ANNEXURE-V.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
WP No. 29995 of 2016
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
Initially this captioned petition was filed seeking a
writ in the nature of mandamus against respondent Nos.1
to 3 to release and pay the arrears of salary that was
legally due to them from December, 2000 to October,
2007 and August, 2007 respectively.
2. Pending writ petition, it appears that the
respondents issued an endorsement declining to consider
the petitioners' request to release and pay the arrears of
salary. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing
an application and now the petitioners are seeking a writ
of certiorari to quash an endorsement dated 15.11.2010
issued by the Deputy Director (Administration), Public
Instructions Department, Bidar as per Annexure-V.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused
the records.
4. The short point that needs consideration at the
hands of this Court is as to whether the
respondents/authorities can deny the salary to the
petitioners, who are admitted to grant-in-aid, on the
ground that the institution where the petitioners were
treated as excess teachers for want of infrastructure. The
case on hand has got a checkered history. This is the
fourth round of litigation and the petitioners are made to
run pillar to post. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.Nos.8742-8744/2004 evidenced at Annexure-A
allowed the writ petitions directing the concerned
authorities to constitute a committee to hold an enquiry in
regard to the infrastructure of the institution and
simultaneously, directed the authorities to disburse the
salary within two months after submission of the report, if
the report is favourable to respondent No.6/institution.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the
authorities conducted an inspection and found that the
institution where the petitioners were rendering service
was found to be lacking infrastructure and in the said
inspection report, the authorities accordingly
recommended the petitioners to be transferred to the
nearby educational institution.
5. The Government taking cognizance of the
report, passed an order on 03.02.2006, resolving to deny
the salary to the petitioners from 2000 to 2007. This order
was called in question by the petitioners by filing a writ
petition in W.P.No.13640/2006. This Court, though, upheld
the committee's report and took cognizance of the fact
that the petitioners were accommodated in government
school, however, directed the respondents/authorities to
release the salary to the petitioners that was legally due
from December, 2000. Liberty was reserved to the
petitioners to submit a representation seeking release of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
arrears of salary. Para No.3 would be relevant. The same
is extracted which reads as under:
"3. It is to be noticed that Annexure-E is
the offshoot of the order passed by this Court in the
writ petition referred to above. This Court in the
said writ petitions directed the respondents to form
a Committee and to inspect availability of the
infrastructure. The Committee has inspected and
found that the school lacks infrastructure. Hence,
the impugned order at Annexure-E on the basis of it
cannot be faulted. But, what is significant is that, in
all the cases of this nature, the teachers who were
admitted to the grant-in-aid have been relocated in
other schools. In the case on hand, it is submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both
the petitioners have been accommodated in the
Government schools. If it so, I am of the view that
there is no impediment for the State Government to
release the salary due to the petitioners from
December 2000. It is open for the petitioners to
give a representation to the respondents for release
of the salary and if such representation is given,
the same shall be considered by the respondents
with an outer limit of two months from the date of
receipt of such representation. The respondent shall
also take note of the observation made by this
Court."
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
6. Since there was a clear inaction on the part of
the authorities, the petitioners were again compelled to
knock the doors of this Court. Writ petitions were filed in
W.P.Nos.83524-83525/2009. In second round of litigation,
Additional Government Advocate in fact conceded the
entitlement of the petitioners and assured this Court that
the authorities will be advised to comply the order passed
by this Court in W.P.13640/2006. This Court deems it fit
to cull out paragraph No.2 of the said order which reads as
under:
"2. The petitioners grievance is that their
representation dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure - B) has
remained unconsidered despite the order dated
22.10.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No.13640/2006
directing the respondents to consider, the same within
two months. Sri M Kumar, the learned Additional
Government Advocate fairly submits that he would
advise the Government officers to comply with the order
dated 22.10.2008. His submission is placed on record.
Liberty is also reserved to the petitioners' side to resort
to the initiation of the contempt proceedings, if they are
so advised."
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
7. It is also worth to note that Additional
Commissioner for Public Instructions Department,
Kalaburagi sent a communication to the Deputy Director,
Public Instructions Department, Bidar and there is a clear
direction to comply the directions issued by this Court and
report compliance to its office. This Court also deems it fit
to cull out the relevant communication sent by the
Additional Commissioner for Public Instructions
Department, Kalaburagi:
" ೕ ನ ಷಯ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ ದಂ ೆ, ೕ ಬಸವ ಾಜ ೈ ಕ ಕರು
ಬಸವ ೕಥ! ಾ" #ೕಠ %ಯ &ಾ ಥ'ಕ (ಾ)ೆ ಹ+,-ೇಡ (/) ಾ:
ಹುಮ1ಾ2ಾದ 3: /ೕದರ ಮತು5 ೕಮ 6ಾ ಸಹ 7 ೕ ಸ ಾ ೕ±Àéರ
%ಯ &ಾ ಥ'ಕ (ಾ)ೆ ಸ8ಾ2ಾದ ರವರ (96ೆಂಬ:-2000 %ಂದ
ಅ ೊ=ೕಬ:-2007 ರ ವ ೆ>ನ ಅವ ?ೆ) ತ@ೆ 9AರುವBದನುC Dಾನ" ಉಚG
1ಾ"Hಾಲಯ ¨ÉAಗಳLರು ರವರ ಆ ೇಶದನOಯ /ಡುಗ@ೆ?ೊ+ಸಲು ಉ)ೆPೕQತ
ಪತ ದ£ÀéAiÀÄ ಕರುಗಳS ೇ+ ೊA9ರು ಾ5 ೆ. ಪ ಯುಕ5 ಸದ%ಯವರ ಮನ ಯ
ಪ ಯನುC ಇದ ೊಂA?ೆ ಲಗ 5 ರUಾVಸು ಾ5 ಮನ ಯ Pನ ಷಯದ ಕು%ತು
ವರUಾದ ವರAಯನುC ಕೂಡ)ೇ ಈ ಕXೇ%?ೆ ಸ Pಸಲು ಸೂY ೆ."
8. Upon careful examination of the above said
materials, this Court has also reviewed a similar judgment
delivered by a Co-ordinate Bench, as highlighted in
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
Annexure-P. In this case, the Bench dealt with an identical
issue and referred to the Government circular issued
pursuant to Section 98(2) of the Karnataka Education Act,
1983. The circular outlines the Government's obligation to
pay salaries to teachers categorized as "excess staff" when
such staff have been temporarily displaced. Paragraph 6 of
this judgment is particularly relevant and reads as follows:
"6. The Government has issued an order as per
Annexure-'J' dated 23.6.2008 pursuant to Section 98(2)
of the Karnataka Educational Act, 1983. The Government
Order is produced at Annexure- 'J' to the writ petition.
The said Government order reveals that, in case if any
private educational institution is having excess staff, such
staff should be shifted to any other private educational
institution. The very Government order also reveals that
such staff whose shifting and appointment to any other
private institution is in the pipeline, should be paid the
salary till they are actually appointed and shifted to other
institution. It is also made clear in the order that such
payment should be made till the academic year 2008-09
only. Since the petitioner is entitled to be shifted and
appointed in some other private aided educational
institution, her case is fully covered by the Government
Order vide Annexure-'J' dated 26.3.2008. Consequently,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
she should be paid last drawn salary till the end of
academic year 2008-09 i.e., till 31.3.2009."
9. The Co-ordinate Bench, in allowing the writ
petition, further held that teachers who were designated
as excess staff and not promptly reassigned to other
institutions are entitled to interest on their unpaid salary
at a rate of 8%. This finding is grounded in the principle
that delayed payment of salary, for which the Government
is responsible, should also account for the financial
hardship caused to the petitioners during the period of
non-payment.
10. In addition to the above, this Court has also
considered the judgments delivered by the Co-ordinate
Bench in other analogous cases, which have been upheld
by this Court. The judgment, as evidenced in Annexure-Q,
further solidify the legal position that the petitioners are
entitled to their unpaid salary during the period they were
designated as excess staff but not reassigned or
compensated in a timely manner.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
11. Given the principles established by these prior
judgments, this Court holds that the lack of infrastructure
in the institution to which the petitioners were originally
posted, which resulted in their designation as excess staff,
does not absolve the Government of its responsibility to
pay their salaries. The Karnataka Education Act and
related Government circulars make it clear that the
responsibility for paying salaries to teachers in this
situation lies with the Government. As the institution had
already been admitted to grant-in-aid, the primary
obligation for paying the petitioners during the interim
period rests with the Government. The circular issued by
the State Government aligns with this legal requirement,
and the failure to comply with these obligations is a breach
of the petitioners' rights.
12. This Court also notes that the directions issued
in favor of the petitioners in two prior instances were not
challenged by the State, making them binding on the
Government and its authorities. The conduct of the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
respondents/authorities in this case reflects a clear failure
to act with due diligence or to approach the petitioners'
situation sympathetically, despite the clear directions from
this Court. The endorsement issued by the authorities, as
seen in Annexure-V, appears to be an afterthought
designed to justify their non-compliance and is in direct
contravention of this Court's earlier orders. Consequently,
the impugned order is unsustainable and therefore, is
liable to be quashed. For the forgoing reasons, this Court
passes the following;
ORDER:
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 15.11.2010,
as per Annexure-V, is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondents/authorities are directed to pay
arrears of salary from December 2000 to
October 2007 in respect of petitioner No.1, and
from December 2000 to August 2007 in respect
of petitioner No.2.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7699
(iv) The respondents/authorities are also directed to
pay interest at the rate of 8% from December
2000 until the arrears are fully paid.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
RSP
CT-SW
